- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
FTA:
Two conservative legal scholars, members of the Federalist Society in good standing, have just published an audacious argument: that Donald Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for president, and that state election officials have not only the authority but the legal obligation to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.
The legal paper, authored by University of Chicago professor William Baude and University of St. Thomas professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, centers on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — a provision that limits people from returning to public office if they have since “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort” to those who have. Baude and Paulsen argue that this clearly covers Trump’s behavior between November 2020 and January 2021.
“The most politically explosive application of Section Three to the events of January 6, is at the same time the most straightforward,” Baude and Paulsen write. “Former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.”
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s crazy that we ignore parts of the constitution just because they’re politically inconvenient.
Sounds about right to me, and given the Jan 6th committee found Trump liable for the event, there is already a legal decision which elections officials can point to. Huh, looks like someone is trying to undermine the Jan 6th committee, wonder why they would do that?
Why does the “Jan 6th commitee” matter at all?
Did you happen to watch the televised portion of it? It was honestly amazing. It was like a legal case that went into detail from all different aspects of that day and what trump did that day and leading up to it. They explained everything that happened on the capitol at any given time and where, how close some statesmen got to the mob, how the mob spread out and what they were doing. It matters because they put in the work to investigate and put the time-line all together. It painted the full picture and it was straight facts.
Discrediting them is just discrediting the facts. That’s why it matters.
Do any of you think this matters?
I mean, given all of the other laws and such that he broke blatantly while in office, fuck no lol. Emoluments, Hatch act violations, the very obvious fact that either impeachment would have succeeded if republicans even pretended for a second to be principled and supported the constitution, etc.
Just toss it on the pile.
He’d need to be convicted. There would have to be a trial. For that, we’d need an indictment. I really wanted to think that would happen by now.
The more time and research you put into an investigation, the more likely you are to succeed. The time constraint is going to trial before elections, but you also want to max out time to prepare
What worries me is that the majority of Americans DO think it matters. If anywhere near 51% of these cunts think he’d make a good “world leader” then the entire human population is fucked beyond belief (and they already let it happen once…)
If business as usual continues in America the human population is kinda fucked anyway. Just sayin.
Yeah you right (hello darkness my old friend…)
It will eventually. Incompetence and stupidity might not catch up with you immediately, but it’s like an immortal snail tirelessly pursuing you. Eventually it will always get you.
Idealism.
There are, in fact, incompetent people that lived their whole lives facing zero consequences.
Such as?
Are you seriously asking for proof of people failing upwards? Just, never run into this before? Never seen a white man get promotion after promotion despite failing at everything he does? This is not an unknown phenomenon! It usually doesn’t reach the presidency… but o you expect George Bush to go to prison for his war crimes? Or even stop being invited to fancy dinners with celebrities?
We live in hell.
Looooot of people are emotionally invested in the idea of karma/people eventually getting what they deserve. It’s really uncomfortable for them to be told that the real world is littered with narcissists and assholes who live a full and fulfilling life, never seeing true consequences for their actions
It’s a cope. They need to believe in divine fairness in the world to feel like life has any meaning or is worth living. It’s the same reason people believe in an afterlife with divine reward and punishment or in a next life where their current life determines how they reincarnate in the cycle. If life is just random horrible bullshit and there is no justice and there is no point and it all comes down to luck, then what was it all for???
I sympathize.
I’m asking for one example of someone living their whole life with zero consequence, like you claimed.
The original argument was not that there are no example of falling upwards, but that the consequence always come to bite them in the ass, even if it takes a while. You argued there are in fact people who lived their whole lives facing zero consequence for their actions, so that means it should be easy for you to show me one such example.
I gave you one - George W. Bush
Yes.
lol
This seems pretty clear cut to me. He should not be allowed to run again.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Baude and Paulsen’s paper, set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, focusing on plain-language readings on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the way its key terms were used in political discussion around the time of enactment.
If this interpretation is correct, then the legal case against Trump is fairly straightforward — all established by facts in public reporting, evidence from the January 6 committee, and the recent federal indictment.
Even if (let’s say) the members of a state board of elections think someone below the drinking age would make the best president in American history, the law is clear that such a person can’t hold office and thus can’t be permitted to run.
Every official involved in the US election system, from a local registrar to members of Congress, has an obligation to determine if candidates for the presidency and other high office are prohibited from running under Section 3.
Moreover, state election officials are not federal judges; the very existence of Griffin’s Case, however poorly reasoned, creates real doubt as to whether they are legally empowered to do what Baude and Paulsen are telling them they have to do.
Best case, there’s a write-in campaign to put Trump in the presidency, giving rise to a constitutional crisis if he won (since the Supreme Court would have ruled him ineligible in upholding the state officials’ actions).
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Good bot! (Don’t know if that works on Lemmy but I love a good TL;DR)
Holy shit this liberal clickbait is just sad.
And how do you feel about supporting a party that is using congress to investigate a private citizen, which it isn’t supposed to do, with absolutely no evidence?
The Jan 6th committee has hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence.
What? I do not support the Capitalist parties, and you shouldn’t either.
How many Republicans would you estimate there are in the United States?
Too many. Much like the amount of “democrats”
So then go find someone better than this human pile of shit
